-
-
-
Nah, it's the idea that if a philosopher has no idea of how science may solve a problem (e.g., consciousness) then nobody will ever solve that problem. Very silly.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I wrote about this recently, albeit with fewer Chomsky burns:https://deontologistics.wordpress.com/2019/09/17/tfe-mysterianism-and-quietism-in-the-philosophy-of-mind/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Alternatively, it's a very reasonable position that just says: "given the limits of other animals, it wouldn't be surprising if we also had cognitive limits and the nature of our own experience was one of those limits." It's an anti-"humans reached a threshold" argument.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
please, never quit twitter.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
François Chollet, in “On the Measure of Intelligence,” says “a central point of this document is that ‘general intelligence’ is not a binary property which a system either possesses or lacks. It is a spectrum, tied to 1) a scope of application, which may be more or less broad...”
-
Is this not exactly what Chomsky has been claiming?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
chomskys language hierarchy is contra- -dicted- by obvious and considerations on power and anarchy.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.